From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 5 22:51:03 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797C8106564A for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 22:51:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) Received: from ns1.feral.com (ns1.feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE858FC12 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 22:51:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ns1.feral.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns1.feral.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p65Moj7B074714 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Jul 2011 15:50:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) Received: from localhost (mjacob@localhost) by ns1.feral.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id p65Mojrf074711; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 15:50:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) X-Authentication-Warning: ns1.feral.com: mjacob owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 15:50:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob To: Anton Shterenlikht In-Reply-To: <20110705222435.GA32508@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> Message-ID: References: <20110630102544.GA97559@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <4E0C67EC.8020609@feral.com> <20110705083935.GA9094@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <4E132104.2060900@feral.com> <20110705222435.GA32508@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (ns1.feral.com [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: isp(4) timeout X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: mj@feral.com List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 22:51:03 -0000 On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > I somehow missed ispfw(4). > Now added > > device ispfw > > to the kernel. > > Is this sufficient? Overkill, but sufficient.